Idiots!

[CFT]

It perplexes me that people get so obsessed over proper regulation and control of firearms. After all most people don't have a problem with proper regulation and control of other potentially deadly tools such as the automobile

Sorry, being dense here. You agree with the regulation and control of access to motor vehicles right?

[SimonM]

Absolutely!

Actually I'm in favor of periodic mandatory re-testing to retain licenses.

My argument is this:

Firearms are a tool.

Automobiles are a tool.

The four categories of firearms I am in favor of leaving available for civilian access serve every use of this tool just fine while throwing around the minimum number of bullets that might accidentally hit a passer-by and cause injury or death. These functions are: home defense, hunting.

The function of maintaining a counter-point to the state military is moot. The army has better vehicles and a tank trumps an uzi any day. A stealth bomber with smart-bombs on it furthermore trumps just about anything. So automatic and semi-automatic weaponry (with the exception of semi-automatic pistols which I accept have a valid home-defense use) really aren't going to allow for the formation of a militia that could overthrow a corrupt government that controls the military. It's a pipe dream left over from a past age.

So let's return to some common sense on the issue. Cars can be dangerous. So we want to make sure that people who use cars know how to safely operate the vehicle and do not have a past history of using them irresponsibly. I don't think ANYBODY would argue that vehicle saftety laws are a bad thing.

Guns can be dangerous. One would think that we would want to make sure that people who use guns know how to safely operate the firearm and do not have a past history of using firearms irresponsibly. And yet people fight tooth and nail against that.

[naja]

do you want to engage your common sense and rethink your statement?

...stfu...

[SimonM]

What a pithy comeback.

[naja]

What a pithy comeback.

I thought it was appropriate.

[David Jamieson]

I could think of a few valid reasons for using an uzi.

say, spelling my name in OBL's corpse?
Introducing myself to Taliban members?

and so on...

having said that, letting a kid have access to that firepower should leave the parents or guardians charged with criminal negligence causing homicide and I really don't care how badly they feel about it.
hindsight on a tragic death doesn't count. Pay a penalty.

[SimonM]

Waste of bullets.

All it takes is one.

Waste-not want-not.

I would rather our soldiers out of afghanistan. As far as I'm concerned that's not a war we will win. The deaths of the soldiers who died there are already pretty much in vain. The best way we can support our troops is to bring them home and redeploy them for peacekeeping missions and domestic disaster relief. That being said as long as our troops are stuck in that morass I would prefer them on a hill, a kilometer away, with a sniper rifle than down in the thick of it with a gun known for being "inaccurate at the range of the length of a bed".

[CFT]

...stfu...

So you don't think it is completely insane that an eight year old is handling firearms under any conditions?

[Lucas]

an 8 year old doesnt need to fire any type of gun. he may want to, his parents may want him to, but he certainly doesnt NEED to.

many 8 year olds want to be astronauts....are we going to send them into space now too?

[GreenCloudCLF]

Just because certain forum members "shot guns when I was XXX" and did not have any negative consequences, does not in any way make children handling guns any less stupid or dangerous. If you closed your eyes and ran across the Autobahn and lived, I would not tell people this behavior is safe. The sun even shines on a dog's bum every so often.

[naja]

So you don't think it is completely insane that an eight year old is handling firearms under any conditions?

No. My father is a gunsmith, and works out of his house. He's been doing this for nearly 50 years. I grew up in that house and have never had any inclination to point a firearm at myself or anyone else. Loaded or unloaded. It comes down to common sense by adults who are teaching children, of whatever age, how to handle firearms.

[TenTigers]

The four categories of firearms I am in favor of leaving available for civilian access serve every use of this tool just fine while throwing around the minimum number of bullets that might accidentally hit a passer-by and cause injury or death. These functions are: home defense, hunting.

The function of maintaining a counter-point to the state military is moot. The army has better vehicles and a tank trumps an uzi any day. A stealth bomber with smart-bombs on it furthermore trumps just about anything. So automatic and semi-automatic weaponry (with the exception of semi-automatic pistols which I accept have a valid home-defense use) really aren't going to allow for the formation of a militia that could overthrow a corrupt government that controls the military. It's a pipe dream left over from a past age.



Guns can be dangerous. One would think that we would want to make sure that people who use guns know how to safely operate the firearm and do not have a past history of using firearms irresponsibly.

ok, then why shouldn't reponsible adults (over eight) be allowed to own semi autos?

That's like taking away my Marshalls and telling be to play through a Fender Champ, or a small combo,because I don't play big arenas.
And if I did, I could always mike them up. Many pros do.
-sure, but I still want my Marshall stack. And if I am not hurting anyone, blasting it out my window and pi$$ing off the neighbors, as the punks with the monster audio systems in their cars do, then why the heck not?

pretty soon, you'll be telling me that I only need ONE rubber love doll.
Sheesh! What's the world coming to?

[naja]

ok, then why shouldn't reponsible adults (over eight) be allowed to own semi autos?

You can. You just need a license for NFA Title 2 weapons.

[SimonM]

ok, then why shouldn't reponsible adults (over eight) be allowed to own semi autos?

Semi-automatic rifles are unsportsmanlike in a hunting context.
They are overkill in home defense scenarios.

Using a semi-automatic rifle for purposes a bolt-action rifle will serve just fine is like using a jackhammer to pound nails into your wall.

And, you will note, I am not opposed to the use of semi-automatic pistols. It's automatically repeating weapons I have the biggest beef with.

[Lucas]

i think im one of the few people who think all hunting should be done with a bow or a spear.

unless of course our ancestors were far superior to us....they did it for thousands of years.....something someone said one time bout how we are supposed to be superior....cept we need guns to kill a deer......

I know a few hunters who only use bows, and I commend them.